Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying?


No, I read each post as if it was the person's first.
  6% (3)
Maybe, if I remember the person, it might matter.
  32% (16)
If I remember the person, of course it matters.
  52% (26)
Oh hell, if I don't remember the person, I do a search of past posts!
  4% (2)
None of it matters at all. I am only here for entertainment.
  6% (3)


Total Votes : 50
(last vote on : 10/8/2012 5:15:58 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message

LaTigresse -> Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 1:09:30 PM)

After a recent interaction on another thread I started thinking. I don't understand how, regardless of emotional investment, a person's past posts cannot colour our opinions.

If some people post something that, at first glance, seems out of character, I am going to re-read and try to understand where they are coming from. If I remember a poster, have a feel for who they are, of course that is going to colour my view of anything they write. How could it not?

So I am curious about other's points of view.



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 1:14:25 PM)

I don't know every poster here, but I remember everyone I know, or knew.

There is someone who's returned to the boards under another name, and every time I see his posts I am a little nauseated, and disgusted at his coyness. More than a few whose pasts inform every bit of punctuation. The ones that have those strong reactions are ones that I have had real life interactions with. The confabulators and storytellers, I give an eyeroll to and maybe a listen if there seem to be lulz.

I've always said that you can change your behaviour but you can't change your SELF.



SoulAlloy -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 1:30:34 PM)

If I'm used to a posters style (sarcastic, mischieveous, serious, heartfelt, etc.) then it can affect my interpretation of the post. Occasionally I'll need to reread a post just to try and relate it to the topic at hand, I'm kind of anal like that though

I usually try and take it as face value (or should that be written value?), sometimes simply the mood I'm in can affect my interpretation too, regardless of the poster's history



Karmastic -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 1:35:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

After a recent interaction on another thread I started thinking. I don't understand how, regardless of emotional investment, a person's past posts cannot colour our opinions.

If some people post something that, at first glance, seems out of character, I am going to re-read and try to understand where they are coming from. If I remember a poster, have a feel for who they are, of course that is going to colour my view of anything they write. How could it not?

So I am curious about other's points of view.

i think it was our interaction that you're referring to. good top post.

i voted maybe, because of course our past interactions with someone we remember (and perhaps get to know a bit) shade how we interact in that person in the present.

my points there, as here, are:

don't let past negative interactions with a person give you justification for executing a bombing run on that person's posts. leave the negative presumptions behind, and behave and reply based on the words, not the person (or their reputation). i think that's a more noble approach, and lends itself to living in the present and not letting baggage run our lives and how we behave.

you alluded to enjoying reacting to trolls sometimes. my point there was, at least let them be a troll first (with their words), before you project all the negative connotations and motives to their words, without really understanding the words or intent.






OsideGirl -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 1:38:36 PM)

Absolutely.

There are people here that I don't agree with, but I respect because of their previous posts.

There are people here that I like, based on their previous posts.

There are people that I think are flaming idiots, but don't respond because they've never behaved like a flaming ass in their previous posts.

There are people here that I treat like an ass because they've behaved like an ass.....repeatedly, in their previous posts.

This isn't a "morality car wash". You don't get to wipe away previous behavior simply because you wish it to be so. The only way that happens is if you change your behavior.



littlewonder -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 1:41:17 PM)

sometimes yes
sometimes no

depends on my mood and the question asked

I guess for me it's not that big a deal because I'm not really invested in that person or this website. I don't really think about that person much. I don't really look that far into posts or people on here.



JstAnotherSub -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 1:45:52 PM)

I am guilty of letting previous interactions color my reading of someones post. Once I think someone is an idiot, that tends to be all I see.

Of course, I accept that I am also seen as that idiot to others and it colors how they read my posts.

Mostly, I am really here for entertainment though.



LaTigresse -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 1:48:57 PM)

For ME, a person has to be a rather special crayon for me to remember so I chose option 3.

Now, special can be good, or special can be.........less good. It's just that, if I remember you, there is a reason.

I don't remember a time when I've ever done a search but I may have. If I've gone to that effort, a person is a very extra special crayon indeed. I would probably remember it. (if it happened in the last week or so...)



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 1:53:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

Absolutely.

There are people here that I don't agree with, but I respect because of their previous posts.

There are people here that I like, based on their previous posts.

There are people that I think are flaming idiots, but don't respond because they've never behaved like a flaming ass in their previous posts.

There are people here that I treat like an ass because they've behaved like an ass.....repeatedly, in their previous posts.

This isn't a "morality car wash". You don't get to wipe away previous behavior simply because you wish it to be so. The only way that happens is if you change your behavior.



I tend to remember the assholes and the people I like and often agree with (like the Ogirl). There are many in between that just don't stay on my radar. This is mostly entertainment for me, with a side order of I might learn something or be exposed to something new, and a dash of MAYBE being able to offer some helpful advice.

(No way in hell do I look up everyone's posts. Who the fuck has that kinda time?)




Karmastic -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 1:56:35 PM)

quote:

This isn't a "morality car wash". You don't get to wipe away previous behavior simply because you wish it to be so. The only way that happens is if you change your behavior.

totally agree. BUT, coming in with a negative attitude based on presumptions of OPs bad intent will prevent what you said (bolded above).

littlewonder and the OP both used the word "invested", as in emotionally invested, which i forgot to comment on. i'm just not that emotionally invested in fairly anonymous people on the net, esp if they're negative towards me. therefore, i don't glee in preemptive carpet bombing their posts on the assumption they haven't changed their behavior.



LaTigresse -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 2:05:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

This isn't a "morality car wash". You don't get to wipe away previous behavior simply because you wish it to be so. The only way that happens is if you change your behavior.

totally agree. BUT, coming in with a negative attitude based on presumptions of OPs bad intent will prevent what you said (bolded above).

littlewonder and the OP both used the word "invested", as in emotionally invested, which i forgot to comment on. i'm just not that emotionally invested in fairly anonymous people on the net, esp if they're negative towards me. therefore, i don't glee in preemptive carpet bombing their posts on the assumption they haven't changed their behavior.


And that is YOUR prerogative.

But to quote a poster on another thread " until you are made a mod, don't try to instruct me on how to reply to anyone. "

Doing so WILL colour other's view of you.

It only serves to make you look the fool.

If indeed that matters to you.



LadyPact -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 2:05:31 PM)

I do consider past posts as part of the evaluation on a new post.  That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.  If the person is a regular poster, doing so helps to create a basis in knowledge of the other person's background.  For example, I know tidbits of information that have come from the majority of people here on this thread.  This helps Me to create a better overall picture of that person and allows Me to take that into account.

There used to be a regular poster here that was a friend of Mine.  She often said that a person's history on the boards doesn't begin with each new post.  If a person has shown themselves, in general, to be an ass, I don't particularly expect them to stop being an ass just because they started a new topic.

Before I forget, there are some extreme cases where people have shown their mental instability.  Meaning they have told readers here about them being locked up for it.  Cases like that, I'm probably going to remember, especially when it's a pattern.  I've also asked people if they were drunk when they wrote one certain thing or another because it was so out of character for them.



OsideGirl -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 2:08:06 PM)

I think there have only been two cases where I went looking at previous posts of someone I didn't recognize. 1) Someone in introductions that I think I've seen doing an introduction before and 2) the guy who claimed that he had been his aunt's slave in an illegal situation because I thought I remembered seeing something entirely different posted somewhere else.



BitaTruble -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 2:09:49 PM)

Personally, I 'want' my posting history to be taken into account. I'm pretty consistant albeit with the occasional EPIC fail and it would be a shame if the occasional fail colored or discounted the other 8000 or so posts I have made on the fora.

If someone's view of me was based on, for example, them reading only a copy of TrubledTimes.. they would probably view me a certain way. (Fucked up chick with a very weird sense of humor!)

If someone's view of me was based on the post I wrote on power & spirit, their view of me might be different. (Idealistic chick with an unrealistic view point on power and spirit - but a way with words and an ability to express exactly what my thoughts are on the subject)

If someone's view of me was based on the post I wrote about the magical world of cunts, their view might again be all together different (a chick who speaks her truth through a funny POV)

If someone's view of me was based on the trailer park trash post.. well, that post was certainly not me at my best and I could have worded it much differently and ended up apologizing.. not for what I said, but for the way I said it.

If someone's view of me is based strictly on the blood letting ritual post, again.. a totally different understanding of who "I" am could be drawn.

Put those posts together though, and you'll see 'me' more fully as there is more than one dimension from which to draw and I'm cool with that.





OsideGirl -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 2:15:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

This isn't a "morality car wash". You don't get to wipe away previous behavior simply because you wish it to be so. The only way that happens is if you change your behavior.

totally agree. BUT, coming in with a negative attitude based on presumptions of OPs bad intent will prevent what you said (bolded above).


The person in question had the opportunity to apologize and change behavior, several times actually....but chose to repeatedly behave like a twat instead. So, that's how I treat that person.

I'm not going to candy coat my responses to someone who has insulted me just because you want a nice big singing circle of Kumbaya.





LaTigresse -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 2:17:31 PM)

Exactly! If a person responds to one of my posts, and it's obvious they've not remembered reading the variety of subjects and tones of my posts, then I may not even bother acknowledging it. Even if it seems to desire a response. I've not the patience to explain myself in detail when a little homework would enlighten them tremendously.

I have learned to especially ignore posts directed towards me by persons that show they purposely read specific posts and ignore others. Choosing to pick those that emphasize their own twisted sense of reality.

In addition.......I am sure I am not the only one that has grown concerned about one or more of our forum friends, after reading a post (or more) and feeling that something just wasn't quite as it should be. Perhaps even messaged them on the other side to check if they were okay.



SassySarijane -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 2:30:54 PM)

I may only be here for entertainment value, but very definitely previous posting history and interactions with posters will color my responses to them.



Karmastic -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 2:39:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse
But to quote a poster on another thread " until you are made a mod, don't try to instruct me on how to reply to anyone. "

Doing so WILL colour other's view of you.

It only serves to make you look the fool.

If indeed that matters to you.

and to paraphrase what i told your co-heart, it's very ironic that when i make a general preachy post directed to no one in particular, i'm "instructing others how to post". but when you and your co-heart tell me i shouldn't make preachy posts, it isn't telling me how to post.

really, no hard feelings here. not really any strong feelings at all. i do sometimes find your posts interesting and sometimes informative, and even entertaining.



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 2:45:28 PM)

On the margin, to the extent I remember someone's perspective and background, I will try to take that into account when reading one of their posts simply because more information is often better.

But I don't assume a post is not very good, or mean spirited, or very good, etc. simply because of who posted it. A bad post is a bad post regardless of the source. And a good post is a good post regardless of the source.

In that same vein, I don't hide/block people's comments on this site, or any other site I participate in. If I've had an online "altercation" with someone, I chalk it up to the fact that each of us has our point of view - and we are entitled to our pov, and even entitled to a certain amount of emotion over things we care deeply about. I'm not a fan of ad hominem attack and try to avoid it, but I also don't block people who attack me personally. I am more interested in the debate, ultimately, than I am in any individual poster, per se.

When I choose to respond to someone it usually is not because of who they are, but what they have said. And I am just as likely to agree, as to disagree with someone, as I don't possibly see how any two people could have exactly the same views on every single thing that comes up on the forums. (In fact, it would weird me out if someone had exactly the same perspective as me on everything - I still consider myself unique [:D] )

And while I have people on this site who have welcomed me, and certainly interacted in friendly ways, I don't operate with a clique mentality where I feel that therefore I must always support what that person says, and defend them against anyone who has something legitimate to say against them. Again, for me, the value is in the exchange of the ideas. I am happy to make cyber friends here, but just as in real life, I don't agree with everything that my friends say or do. Disagreeing with me does not make someone my enemy. It just means we have a different point of view. And I feel one can still be friends, or at least friendly, even when one disagrees. [sm=2cents.gif]




LaTigresse -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/11/2012 2:49:17 PM)

I don't assume hard feelings as I've none.

It is obvious you see things a great deal differently than many of us do.

I am not at all sure what you mean by co-heart so I will not respond to it. I've never heard of a co-heart.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875